CUDALucas (a.k.a. MaclucasFFTW/CUDA 2.3/CUFFTW) - Page 106

kladner · 2012-03-28, 21:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by kladner

But at the moment, it ignores -f for some reason. I'll get back to it in a bit.

I just had to move the check files out of the folder. -f 474560 does run faster than the default 1572864.

Code:

474560
err = 0.09766 (0:50 real, 4.9958 ms/iter
1572864
err = 0.02148 , 5.3635 ms/iter

It seems the fft could go smaller, but I'll have to read the part of the thread that's been posted since I started experimenting and writing about it.

kladner · 2012-03-28, 23:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by kladner

-f 474560 does run faster than the default 1572864.

Code:

474560
err = 0.09766 (0:50 real, 4.9958 ms/iter
1572864
err = 0.02148 , 5.3635 ms/iter

It seems the fft could go smaller, but I'll have to read the part of the thread that's been posted since I started experimenting and writing about it.

Oops. That is 1474560. So far the smallest that doesn't terminate on a GTX 460 with a 26M exponent.

flashjh · 2012-03-29, 01:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by kladner

Oops. That is 1474560. So far the smallest that doesn't terminate on a GTX 460 with a 26M exponent.

That was the same for me on a 580

LaurV · 2012-03-29, 02:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by kladner

EDIT: This is weird. <snitp>
But CuLu continues to start with 1572864.

You have to delete the checkpoint file "cXXXXX" and "tXXXX". If there is a checkpoint file it will always resume from where it left, and the checkpoint files are not interchangeable, they have the size of the fft used. So, if a file with old fft-size size exists, it will use THAT size regardless of what -f you use. So, you can appreciate, if you job is done more then 10-15-20% or so, it would be faster to let it finish with old 1572864 (=32768*48), then use 1474560 (=32768*45) starting with the new exponent. Both sizes work well for 26-27M range, the shortest one is faster between 10% and 30% depending on your card. Use fftbench option as explained before to check exactly for your card.

kladner · 2012-03-29, 02:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by flashjh

That was the same for me on a 580

Thanks again for throwing that out there. It made a difference for me.

msft · 2012-03-30, 14:45

Code:

Processing result: M( 26768243 )C, 0x3280d4e28ef0b188, n = 1474560, CUDALucas v2.00
LL test successfully completes double-check of M26768243

kladner · 2012-03-31, 16:59

Successful LLDC with CuLu:

Code:

26158007No factors below2^69 
P-1B1=390000 
Verified LLB50D7F090E32331F by "David Triggerson" 
Verified LLB50D7F090E32331F by "ktony" on 2012-03-31 
Historyno factor for M26158007 from 2^67 to 2^68 [mfaktc 0.17-Win barrett79_mul32] by "lalera" on 2011-12-05 
Historyno factor for M26158007 from 2^68 to 2^69 [mfaktc 0.18-pre7 71bit_mul24] by "Luigi Morelli" on 2011-12-06 
Historyb50d7f090e3233__ by "ktony" on 2012-03-31

apsen · 2012-04-02, 15:49

I've been assigned triple check and got mismatch with the first two checks for 28982959.

I've run the check twice with different FFT lengths (and -t both times) and got all residues match.

Could someone run it through P95?

Thanks,
Andriy

flashjh · 2012-04-02, 16:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by apsen

I've been assigned triple check and got mismatch with the first two checks for 28982959.

I've run the check twice with different FFT lengths (and -t both times) and got all residues match.

Could someone run it through P95?

Thanks,
Andriy

I'll run it. Will take a few days.

Dubslow · 2012-04-02, 20:57

Does anyone have any Linux (64bit) binaries?

If not, what SDK version do I need, and how exactly do I use the makefile? (Just 'make'? I've sometimes seen fancier things, like 'make; 'makeall && install' or some such, so I want to be sure.)

msft · 2012-04-03, 01:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubslow

Does anyone have any Linux (64bit) binaries?

If not, what SDK version do I need, and how exactly do I use the makefile? (Just 'make'? I've sometimes seen fancier things, like 'make; 'makeall && install' or some such, so I want to be sure.)

You not need SDK.

Code:

$ cat Makefile
CUDALucas: CUDALucas.o
        g++ -O2 -fPIC -o CUDALucas CUDALucas.o -L/usr/local/cuda/lib64 -L/usr/local/cuda/lib64 -lcufft  -lm
CUDALucas.o: CUDALucas.cu
        /usr/local/cuda/bin/nvcc -O2 -arch=sm_13 -I/usr/local/include  CUDALucas.cu  -c
clean:
        -rm *.o CUDALucas
$ make
/usr/local/cuda/bin/nvcc -O2 -arch=sm_13 -I/usr/local/include  CUDALucas.cu  -c
g++ -O2 -fPIC -o CUDALucas CUDALucas.o -L/usr/local/cuda/lib64 -L/usr/local/cuda/lib64 -lcufft  -lm
$ ./CUDALucas -r
Iteration 10000 M( 86243 )C, 0x23992ccd735a03d9, n = 4608, CUDALucas v2.00 err = 0.01074 (0:20 real, 2.0263 ms/iter, ETA 2:21)

2012-03-30, 14:45	#1161
msft Jul 2009 Tokyo 2·5·61 Posts	Code: Processing result: M( 26768243 )C, 0x3280d4e28ef0b188, n = 1474560, CUDALucas v2.00 LL test successfully completes double-check of M26768243

2012-04-02, 20:57	#1165
Dubslow Basketry That Evening! "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40<A<43 -89<O<-88 3·29·83 Posts	Does anyone have any Linux (64bit) binaries? If not, what SDK version do I need, and how exactly do I use the makefile? (Just 'make'? I've sometimes seen fancier things, like 'make; 'makeall && install' or some such, so I want to be sure.) Last fiddled with by Dubslow on 2012-04-02 at 21:04 Reason: ()

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Don't DC/LL them with CudaLucas	LaurV	Data	131	2017-05-02 18:41
CUDALucas / cuFFT Performance on CUDA 7 / 7.5 / 8	Brain	GPU Computing	13	2016-02-19 15:53
CUDALucas: which binary to use?	Karl M Johnson	GPU Computing	15	2015-10-13 04:44
settings for cudaLucas	fairsky	GPU Computing	11	2013-11-03 02:08
Trying to run CUDALucas on Windows 8 CP	Rodrigo	GPU Computing	12	2012-03-07 23:20

2012-04-02, 15:49	#1163
apsen Jun 2011 131 Posts	I've been assigned triple check and got mismatch with the first two checks for 28982959. I've run the check twice with different FFT lengths (and -t both times) and got all residues match. Could someone run it through P95? Thanks, Andriy